This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This talk section has been closed, let's keep the Merge proposal discussion at Talk:MSN Hotmail
As we now know that Hotmail is going to remain Hotmail, would it be an idea to merge Windows Live Hotmail into MSN Hotmail, with a paragraph describing the reason behind and new features of WL Hotmail, and in the intro a few lines saying MSN Hotmail will be turning into Windows Live Hotmail? This would be similar to what is done at Yahoo! Mail. The reason behind this is now that they are both called Hotmail, they are both technically the same program, about which we don't really need two articles. It's just a suggestion. --Niixdo 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I thinks it's a good idea, but perhaps wait until everyone is upgraded and MSN Hotmail is no more. A Cornish Pasty 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no objections to that. Except I'd like to just correct that fact that "Windows Live Hotmail", although it is meant to replace MSN Hotmail, is a completely different program to MSN Hotmail. According to the team blog, they built Windows Live Hotmail from scratch. And yes I agree we should wait for a little longer - perhaps after it's out of beta, until we merge. Pikablu0530 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Leave them seperate. The live hotmail is totally different to the msn hotmail. If you do agree to merge them, at the very least, leave the merger until msn hotmail is rebranded - after beta
Beta is done. As of today, May 7, the old Hotmail is being superseded by Windows Live Hotmail, so I think it is about time that we merge these two articles together. Cumbiagermen 06:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said in the MSN Hotmail 'Merge?' section, and has also been mentioned here, despite that MSN Hotmail will eventually be phased out, MSN Hotmail is completely different to Windows Live Hotmail. MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger are kept as separate articles, and therefore I think that these two should be kept separate as well. Also, it would be very difficult to try and describe the two separate services in the same article. Swanny92 09:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a merge would still be a good idea, with a paragraph describing the old MSN Hotmail. As most of the information about Hotmail would be transferred and now be relevant to WL Hotmail, I can't really see MSN Hotmail having much information in it, and would be at best a stub. Yahoo Mail and their new beta are kept under one article even though they are different.--A Cornish Pasty 10:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yahoo Mail didn't get a name change did it? I don't know how much different the two Yahoo mails are as I don't use them but MSN Hotmail and Live Hotmail are EXTREMELY different. I don't think the merge would be as supported as it would be if they hadn't kept the Hotmail name. If it was Windows Live Mail then I don't think anyone who doesn't know a thing about technology would realise that Live "Mail" would have been the replacement for MSN Hotmail. MSN and Live Messenger get their own articles, and personally I feel that's because MSN Messenger was made by MSN and Live Messenger is made by Windows Live, so they are two different products. They aren't forcing people to upgrade to Live Messenger or Live Hotmail (yet) either, and MSN and Windows Live aren't fully merged either. My argument is that if the Hotmail articles should be merged, MSN and Windows Live should be merged, the two Messengers should be merged, maybe even every Windows version should be combined into the Windows article, and they are all completely ridiculous options. If none of that can happen, then I think MSN Hotmail and Windows Live Hotmail are different enough to have their own articles. Swanny92 11:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we can keep both articles, but the default one where people go when they search "Hotmail" should be the Windows Live one, or perhaps a disambig page. Cumbiagermen 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I think that was what was going to happen eventually. Disambig pages are only for three or more articles with similar or same names, so have the Hotmail page redirect to Windows Live Hotmail, and I already put in a link to MSN Hotmail at the top, so that should be settled then. Swanny92 21:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I use a 1.5Mb/s ADSL connection and it goes slow as hell. I've never waited long enough for it to finish, but I know it takes more than 10 seconds on my computer, which is lot's of time for a web page to load. TV chump 19:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a 1 Mb connection and it starts up fine, not lightning but quick enough. Although it isn't finished yet so we need to wait until it is. And who on earth uses dial-up any more? --A Cornish Pasty 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Lol not many, but I know that plenty of people would still use dial-up, especially in rural areas where they don't offer you broadband. Swanny92 07:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If it is slow, the program automatically asks you if you want to go to their quicker "Classic" version. — Supuhstar * —
Sources
The article is currently tagged as unreferenced, though there are no citation tags throughout the article. Could someone with a fair amount of knowledge on citing please tag parts of the article that need citing? It's either that or just remove the template. Swanny92 06:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Screenshot overkill
This article is suffering from screenshot overkill, only a couple or a few are needed within the article to illustrate key features. Read the licensing agreement: ""It is believed that the use of a limited number of such screenshots for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question...". We are currently in breach of that statement. --A Cornish Pasty 21:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Criticisms
Doesn't this page need criticism? It looks like they cutoff the access of hotmail through Outlook. I've had the account for at least a couple of years and this past weekend I was cut off. Several other users have reported same on Microsoft boards. -- Knapster2005 12:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Shure it needs criticism! Have you noticed, that their SSL certificate isn't valid and also outdated? -- mms 12:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Important missing info
What about all that spam saying that Hotmail will cost? -Unknown
That would be irrelevant in this article. It's just a trick that some stupid person came up with... Eliethesame 11:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Defunct?
From article:
"If a free MSN Hotmail account is not accessed in a 30-day period, then it is temporarily deactivated (all messages deleted, although not the address book). The underlying Passport account, which is tied to the e-mail address, is not released back in to the address pool for 90 days. This allows the current owner to re-activate the e-mail portion of the account and keep the address before new users can register for it; however this is now defunct."
Defunct is a pretty biased an unexplanatory word, can someone explain what is defunct, how it is, and why, and so forth? Does it mean that it is not kept active for an additional 60 (90?) days past the expiration of 30day inactivity? Tyciol 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delivery problems
This sounds more like one person's rant than a general problem. The source seems to be a blog, possibly even a personal blog. Should it really be here? 142.151.160.64 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Further: feel free to verify it. Send mail using your own smtp server (if your ISP allows you to) and check if it arrives. In my case it didn't, while an identical mail via my ISP's SMTP server did. Mail to all other recipients arrives fine. Also at least my ISP's news group the problem was discussed by several users.
Ergo: It seems a general problem. Didgeweb 05:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
My Mails working fine from 2 x SMTP servers to my MSN Hotmail account. Neosophist 19:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge proposal
As we now know that Hotmail is going to remain Hotmail, would it be an idea to merge Windows Live Hotmail into MSN Hotmail, with a paragraph describing the reason behind and new features of WL Hotmail, and in the intro a few lines saying MSN Hotmail will be turning into Windows Live Hotmail? This would be similar to what is done at Yahoo! Mail. The reason behind this is now that they are both called Hotmail, they are both technically the same program, about which we don't really need two articles. It's just a suggestion. --Niixdo 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no objections to that. Except I'd like to just correct that fact that "Windows Live Hotmail", although it is meant to replace MSN Hotmail, is a completely different program to MSN Hotmail. According to the team blog, they built Windows Live Hotmail from scratch. And yes I agree we should wait for a little longer - perhaps after it's out of beta, until we merge. Pikablu0530 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Leave them seperate. The live hotmail is totally different to the msn hotmail. If you do agree to merge them, at the very least, leave the merger until msn hotmail is rebranded - after beta
symode09 07:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Beta is done. As of today, May 7, the old Hotmail is being superseded by Windows Live Hotmail, so I think it is about time that we merge these two articles together. Cumbiagermen 06:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that MSN Hotmail is officially Windows Live Hotmail, I think it's about time that we merge these two articles together. Cumbiagermen 06:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Despite the fact that they are both 'Hotmail', they are two very different services and trying to describe both in the same article I feel would be very difficult. However, I myself would like to see other people's opinions on this. Swanny92 08:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said in the MSN Hotmail 'Merge?' section, and has also been mentioned here, despite that MSN Hotmail will eventually be phased out, MSN Hotmail is completely different to Windows Live Hotmail. MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger are kept as separate articles, and therefore I think that these two should be kept separate as well. Also, it would be very difficult to try and describe the two separate services in the same article. Swanny92 09:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we can keep both articles, but the default one where people go when they search "Hotmail" should be the Windows Live one, or perhaps a disambig page. Cumbiagermen 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I think that was what was going to happen eventually. Disambig pages are only for three or more articles with similar or same names, so have the Hotmail page redirect to Windows Live Hotmail, and I already put in a link to MSN Hotmail at the top, so that should be settled then. Swanny92 21:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, mainly because of the resons mentioned above. Eliethesame 07:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, because MSN hotmail is based on the original hotmail while Windows Live Hotmail was made form the ground up and was originaly going to be called Windows Live Mail tonyf12 20:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree as well, the problem arises that Microsoft still offers Msn Hotmail as a differnet package to that of Windows Live Mail. Therefore, i believe that, until a complete merger, it should remain seperate; the way it is now.
I also disagree, they should not be merged. Another reason being that this would make for a very long article, and they're two very different services, as Swanny92 has said. Mrx9898 04:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
For the time being it makes sense for the articles to exist separately, but in the future a merge will be inevitable, as it has been reported that legacy Hotmail users will eventually switch over to Windows Live Hotmail, and so all traces of the legacy will be gone. At that time (around December of 2007 according to some), I think there should be either a) the merger, or b) that the main Hotmail article be that of Windows Live Hotmail (i.e. when people search "Hotmail" it takes them to the WLH article, not MSNH). Cumbiagermen 04:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree with the merge, just because all traces of the legacy service will be gone dosn't mean these two articles should be merged together. Windows Live Hotmail is superseeding the original and different (MSN)Hotmail Service, much in the same was as some automobiles that are based on the model they replace still retain seperate articles. Neosophist 19:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I say we merge, because the users of MSN Hotmail are being urged to upgrade to WL Hotmail.--Camelcast 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the point of keeping both articles, all the information on this page is already displayed on the Windows Live Hotmail page. Why have two different articles with the same information? There is an MSN Hotmail section on the Windows Live Hotmail page, that seems to be enough. I say merge when all accounts are finally upgraded. --Joowwww 11:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
A merge is inevitable as Windows Live Hotmail is completely replacing MSN Hotmail eventually (so it's not like the vehicle analogy, because those with old vehicles won't be forced to switch to the new model). However, as mentioned above that the main reason in keeping it is for a historical purpose, for example, if someone is doing some research on MSN Hotmail (not Windows Live Hotmail) and want to know its details and developments back then. If the two articles are merged it is important to keep the many relevant historical information on the MSN Hotmail article and expand the current History section in the Windows Live Hotmail article (I can see that many good information are actually missing on the Windows Live Hotmail article.) --Pikablu0530 08:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
We need to keep it seperate, they're completely new code-bases just sharing the name - theres too much history of MSN Hotmail to combine the two, it'll be a messy article with far too much information.
Agree Windows Live Hotmail is just a name change so I believe that all the content from the MSN article should be moved here!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Titan602 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 June 2007.
I Agree to. Hotmail has changed, so does wiki.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.242.217.14 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 30 June 2007.
I believe the two should merge. It just makes sense. Let's get it done already.--Carterdriggs 07:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. They are not the same programs. Sure one would log onto them from the same site, but that's about it. If one has an account from the days of the old MSN Hotmail they will be logged onto the old MSN Hotmail and if it's a newer account they will be logged onto the newer Windows Live Hotmail. They are separate and therefore there's no reason to have only one article between the two of them. Perhaps when one isn't even able to use the old MSN Hotmail anymore and is forced to use the newer Windows Live Hotmail, which is the only way I ever will, is when there should be a merger. NewYork1956 07:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, they are two separate products. They are both distinguished from each other by the parent company Microsoft, they only share the single portion of the name "Hotmail". However I definitely would agree to Wikipedia being improved my adding polls for these sorts of discussions that require agree/disagree opinions.Nrlight 22:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Windows live is not the same product and isnt a browser messenger as windows was
Comment - I think what we are discussing here is merging when MSN Hotmail is no longer available to anyone, i.e. all accounts have been upgraded, then MSN Hotmail will no longer exist, and would be suitable for a section on the WLH article instead of its own article with exactly the same information --Joowwww 09:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree to merge the MSN Hotmail article with the Windows Live Hotmail article on one condition. Since all existing MSN Hotmail accounts will be updated to Windows Live Hotmail on November of 2007, the articles should be merged by then. However, the two articles should not be merged any earlier. Many Wikipedia readers like me still need a last-minute read on the MSN Hotmail article. Thank you. --Mayfare 18:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
'Disagree: Windows Live Hotmail should be kept different from MSN hotmail.
They are similar, but two different programs
And as someone said: Theyre different code bases
I really think that when people type in hotmail, it should jump to windows live instead of msn hotmail. It should be put in the disambig (as someone said earlier) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10014derek (talk • contribs) 08:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree because they are the same and because whenever you sign into your hotmail account you automatically go to live hotmail
MATT 21:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Picture in infobox
The MSN Hotmail login page has recently been updated now saying that MSN Hotmail is changing to Windows Live Hotmail. Should the picture be updated showing the new sign in page or leave it showing the "original" login page? Swanny92 08:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally i'd leave the original picture as that is / well was now the "norm" for a user using this service to see.
You could add the new picture sepeartly under a heading such as "phase out of MSN Hotmail" etc etc if you felt it necessary to add it. Neosophist 19:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
For some time, Microsoft "recruited" people to beta test this new version of hotmail. After this term of testing was over, on May 1st, 2007, they all recieved an email stating "Thanks for being a part of our Windows Live Hotmail Beta. Now that we're getting ready to launch, we want to give you a couple tokens of our appreciation:" and the images on the right were then given with instructions as to how to equip them onto emails automatically, as well as an offer for $100 USD off of a new Windows Vista-equipped PC. The offer website, once here, now redirects to a "learn more" site about Windows Live Hotmail.
I would like to know why this was deleted after posting.— Supuhstar * —
What about the BSD platform?
A famous point about hotmail was that it (used to?) use FreeBSD/OpenBSD(?) as the operating system and Microsoft worked hard to convert it to Windows NT. Last time I heard it wasn't successful at that.
Why isn't this mentioned in the article and does anyone know what's the current status?
Amos Shapira 08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Logo
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was BOTH LOGO ARE USED per discussion below.
Pikablu can you please provide a source/reference where it states that the mail icon is the official Windows Live Hotmail logo. The flag/text logo is displayed on the MSN Hotmail start page, imagine-windowslive.com, NewHotmail.co.uk, Windows Live Hotmail adverts and pretty much any MS-owned Hotmail site, however the mail icon does not appear on any of the above, Windows Live Hotmail itself, Windows Live Hotmail's login page, get.live.com or Windows Live Betas. Unless you can provide sources/references for your statement that the mail icon is the official logo or a reasonable argument for keeping it other than irrelevant consistency then it will be reverted back. --Joowwww 10:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
After reading your comment above, I quickly picked one of the sites mentioned above and had a look. Firstly, please go to http://get.live.com and click on "Windows Live Hotmail" on the left (even note the logo there next to the text). Now if you agree that the blue "1" logo is the official logo for OneCare, or the "magnifying glass" is the official logo for Live Search, or that the Spaces logo shown there is the official logo for WL Spaces, then similarly it can be argued that the "mail" logo being shown in the website is the official logo for Windows Live Hotmail.
And as a side note that a similar "mail" logo, but designed to be appearing at an angle, is used for Windows Live Mail (the desktop client).
The "mail" logo is being used at these official Microsoft websites for promoting and depicting "Windows Live Hotmail", and hence I would reasonably argue and it is sufficient to justify that this "mail" logo is the Windows Live Hotmail logo. This logo would give Windows Live Hotmail its identity, as Microsoft has definitely designed that logo specifically for Windows Live Hotmail. Pikablu0530 14:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call two instances of that icon being used "sufficient" reason to include it when the flag/text logo clearly has more use. If an average person was shown that icon I doubt they would know what it was for. Take a look at the Google More Services page, http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/options/ - Would you say that this image [1] is the definite logo for Gmail? Or on a broader scale of things when describing the service would the full logo (see Gmail) do a better job of promotion, advertising and depiction of the service? I think so. --Joowwww 21:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You asked for official sources and there I have listed several official sources (not to mention that even the Windows Live Hotmail Plus website or the Windows Vista start menu all features that same "mail" logo). In fact I would say that gmail image you provided is a definite logo for Gmail. Do you see it being used for any other purpose other than Gmail or Google Mail? I don't think so. The point is the "mail" logo is used officially as a sole purpose to demonstrate and depict Windows Live Hotmail (or Windows Live Mail previously), and nowhere else, and that is sufficient to justify it. Please see Windows Live Messenger or any other Windows Live articles that has a logo in it. According to your reasoning, would you say the "windows flag+the text Windows Live Messenger" is a better "logo" for WLMessenger rather than the two buddy icons? I don't think so.
And I hope you notice that in the infobox the whole point of having the title "Windows Live Hotmail" there is to tell them this entire article is about Windows Live Hotmail. The logo is directly placed below the title shows the direct relationship between the logo and the product's name. Readers are NOT only looking at the logo by itself, and hence there is no need to have the words "Windows Live Hotmail" contained within the logo.
If the official sources I have provided (both before and now) are insufficient, then please advise me what is. Thank you. Pikablu0530 10:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I still have to disagree. The envelope image on its own does not show the average user any link whatsoever to Windows Live Hotmail. Furthermore I am not talking about the Windows Live Messenger logo, when did I ever mention it. If the Messenger logo was on a blank piece of paper with no text, people would associate it with Windows live Messenger. Could you say the same about the mail icon? I don't think so. I'm not saying that the envelope icon does not exist because I doubt that Microsoft would try and fit the while flag/text logo into a 16x16 space so it would fit in the start menu. As you are such a keen advocate of consistency, perhaps you could look at the 3 major webmail articles Hotmail Gmail and Yahoo! Mail, and notice that the full logo including text is shown on the articles.
You said "the "mail" logo is used officially as a sole purpose to demonstrate and depict Windows Live Hotmail (or Windows Live Mail previously), and nowhere else" - Take a look at www.newhotmail.co.uk - is the mail icon used there? Also what logo is at the top of the page in large clear font, as if it were the logo of what they are describing? Or look anywhere on Windows Live Hotmail itself - is it used there either? If these are official Microsoft websites, made by Microsoft, gone through Microsoft's marketing department, and containing information by the creators of Hotmail - how can you say that the mail icon is the "sole purpose" when this other Windows Live Hotmail logo is used on a lot more sites and official advertisements and lots more places instead of "nowhere else"? --Joowwww 10:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I think you have misinterpreted what I meant by "sole purpose" and "nowhere else", and I apologize if what I said before was unclear. What I meant was that the "mail" logo is used to demonstrate Windows Live Hotmail only - it is not being used to demonstrate anything else other than Windows Live Hotmail. This is similar to the Gmail icon [2], where it is used to demonstrate Gmail only and nothing else. This in itself is enough to justify that the "mail" logo is directly assiciated with Windows Live Hotmail. It is not some "random" symbol that Microsoft created to show that it is an envelope. The purpose of the "mail" logo here is clear - it is the logo for Windows Live Hotmail.
Secondly why do you keep referring to that specific UK-promotional website. That website in itself is insufficient to say that the "mail" logo is not the official logo of Windows Live Hotmail. Take a look at http://ninemsn.com.au, the official Australian MSN website, and even see the hotmail logo on the top-right corner. The "mail" logo is being used at all these official websites as I have mentioned previously and you say that it is not used "enough"? I would like to point out that just because the "mail" logo isn't used on the actual Windows Live Hotmail service doesn't mean that it is not the official logo.
My reference to Windows Live Messenger is simply because it is also part of the Windows Live range of services by Microsoft. I listed it as an example because it is a Windows Live product and hence have a similar way of branding as Windows Live Hotmail. According to your argument for using the Windows Flag+Text as the "logo" for Windows Live services, then applying your argument to Windows Live Messenger (also a Windows Live service similar to Windows Live Hotmail), would you say this logo is better than what is currently shown on Windows Live Messenger article? (without the text "beta" of course)
And regarding your referral to Gmail and Yahoo! Mail. It is not appropriate to compare consistency of logos across products from different companies. Looking at the logo on Gmail article I would say that even in the word "Gmail" it incorporated the logo in the letter "M". For Yahoo! Mail, there was never another logo created for it anyway - so it is inappropriate to compare with Windows Live Hotmail.
The mail icon isn't just used for Hotmail, but for Windows Live Mail too. If there was a need to distunguish the two how would that be done without including the text? I keep referring to the UK site because it's one that sticks in my head without having to search for sites, as well as being an official Microsoft site. I understand that the mail icon appears on the Australian MSN site, it also does on the US MSN site and will probably soon appear on the UK one too. However I can only see this icon as something created to distinguish it from other Windows Live options when displayed in a list, and when advertised on its own and individually the flag/text logo is used. I am not talking about any other Windows live service, as I have already stated above, and I think the current logo used in the Messenger article is a suitable one, as I have also already stated above. I would like to make it clear here and now that my arguments on this talk page are only referring to the Hotmail article/infobox, not any other Windows Live services, of which I have no interest in.
As I cannot see any sort of an agreement coming up then a compromise is needed. On this page [3] there is a flag/text logo which also shows the mail icon, I propose this one to be used for the infobox logo with a suitable caption distinguishing the two. --Joowwww 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
To distinguish between the two, a place you can find both and distinguish is in Windows Vista start menu (after Windows Live Mail has been installed of course). The "flatter" looking one is for Windows Live Hotmail (as shown at http://get.live.com as well), and the one "titled at angle" is for Windows Live Mail - as it is currently being used in the articles.
Okay, I'm fine having both logos in the infobox. I won't propose using [4] as it seems to have used a different logo as per above. The infobox allows both logos to be placed in that area - so why not just place both the flag/text logo with the "mail" logo? EDIT: I have placed both logos in the infobox already. --Pikablu0530 01:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Condensing work detailed
I removed separately named features from TOC list and listed them in bulleted lists.
reordered features in terms of priority of what a user is likely to see first in terms of actions s/he will do:
[login:] UI/localisation, search, color schemes
[various UI improvements to reading messages and taking actions:] Reading pane, keyboard shortcuts
With the new security features, could Hotmail be accessed by multiple users from different locations at the same time with both of them being logged on? --Atreusk 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why I can't see it here, that's the reason why I replaced it with another screenshot I uploaded last month. I'm from Vietnam and I tried IE7 and Firefox2.0, but it stills don't show. I downloaded, clicked to go to Image page --> the same. Vinhtantran 09:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Version
Is this really version 2.0?Geoffreynham 15:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Data Retention
I am aware that hotmail stores user information about people when they initially set up an account. Data such as IP address used to register etc. Does anyone know any details about microsoft/hotmail data retention? eg: period of time stored & what is stored?
Deleted Mail
They have forced an "upgrade" from hotmail, to something that seems unusable on dialup. And they have deleted all my email. All ten years of saved email. The article is wrong; they do not keep free email for 120 days. What is the actual period of time? It is besides the point to say they let you have 2GB or 5GB free, when they won't even let you keep a few megabytes, and you don't know how often you have to check your email to keep them from deleting it all. -69.87.200.139 13:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a 120 day timeout (according to "Windows Weekly 25: Vista - Hot or Not?") -- Imperator3733 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
60 days if it's an old account, according to an email direct from MS customer support to me today:
"If you are wondering why your MSN Hotmail account was migrated to Windows Live Hotmail and your account appears to be newly created, then the contents of your MSN Hotmail inbox were deleted by an automated service which flags accounts which have not been signed into for 60 or more days. Once the inbox contents have been deleted, they cannot be recovered.So if you are thinking of getting an MSN Hotmail account, then please note this key fact.
When you signed in after that period of inactivity, you were also upgraded to Windows Live Hotmail. Windows Live Hotmail will keep your account active, even if you do not sign in for 120 days."
87.81.12.15 (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2000 - 2001 Server Migration
Perhaps this section should also mention that after the acquisition of Hotmail by Microsoft in the process of moving Hotmail from unix based servers to Windows based servers they managed to lose hundreds of accounts along with all the e-mail of those users. They were unable to recover the e-mails because they failed to make proper backups. Some of those who had been using Hotmail before it was acquired by Microsoft ended up with no e-mail at all after.
Accusation of Blatant advertising
As far as I can see, the information on this article is stating FACTS about Hotmail and not promoting it as such. I fail to see how much more neutral it can get, both unique features distinguishing it from other webmail services AND criticisms of Hotmail are included.
I think a comparison needs to be done between this article and the Gmail article, and see if the style of writing about facts differs in any way, which I cannot see it does. My instinct tells me that this article has been bombarded with Advertisement templates by a sad Gmail fan, intent on belittling any competitor of Google's services with his own biased views. --Joowwww 12:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Having read the article, all I can say is that the article may require some cleanups and move the "miscellaneous" section into relevant sections. However, it definitely does not contain "blatant advertising" and hence should not be even considered for speedy deletion. The article states facts about the service and also its criticisms. Also, is it really needed to have THREE tags for speedy deletion on one article? --Pikablu0530 12:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The "Features" section definitely reeked of blatant advertising. I've reworded several parts of the section to remove advertising lingo. I've also removed the POV, Cleanup and Advert templates from the article. -/-Warren 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"The "Features" section definitely reeked of blatant advertising" I just read it, and I thought the same thing. The criticism fuck meee section seems to have many minor, seemingly personal gripes that really don't seem notable to mention. Many webmail services have their flaws, is it mandatory that we list a criticism section? I haven't read any of the other webmail articles but I'll check them out too.Cannedbeef (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have noted that this seems particlarly true in how someone snuck in an 'advertisement' about Gmail in here. This article is NOT "a history of the webmail services"- it is entitled "hotmail". The focus should be on Hotmail and how other varius services may have affected its development- so when someone says "Gmail was made with..." and lists all Gmails awesome, incredible features "innovation" and such with a link to the gmail section it sounds like either an advertisement for Gmail, or a "history of web email servces" with a bias to gmail. I think that portion should focus on hotmail, saying at most how gmail's entering onto the scene inspired *insert changes* in Hotmail... not listing gmails many, l33t features. I've become a little annoyed with how many wikipedia pages seemed to ohh baby be used as an advertisement medium (carefully fit into the boundaries of what is allowed, sometimes even otside those)... so it is particularly annoying when that same thing is done for completely different companies' article. Coroloro (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This was the WHOLE reason I checked out the talk page. Scrolling through the article it was quite jarring to see a paragraph dedicated to pointing out the webmail industry stagnated until GMail came along to rescue us all - particular since that's a fairly subjective claim to make. I definitely think that bit needs removing. You know, for whatever my opinion is worth. :) Kermitron (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Live.com addresses
Does anyone know if the live.com email addresses are available yet? == Imperator3733 20:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are now available[5]WasAPasserBy 00:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move --Lox (t,c) 10:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Support. The article covers Hotmail, MSN Hotmail, and Windows Live Hotmail. Article should not be renamed every time Hotmail is renamed, as it is still most commonly referred to by that name. –Pomte 15:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Support of course. And the person who changed the name should be given the Casino Royale treatment. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Initially, the "Windows Live Hotmail" we have now was named "Windows Live Mail", and it was a completely seperate thing from the then "MSN Hotmail". If they retained that name and made it final, I don't think people would still call it "Hotmail" as often as now. When they renamed it from "Windows Live Mail" to "Windows Live Hotmail", the article name changed as well. At that time, I recall that "Windows Live Hotmail" was still in its beta testing stages, and "MSN Hotmail" was still the mainstream service and hence they existed as separate articles. After "Windows Live Hotmail" replaced "MSN Hotmail" when it was released, the two articles were merged into what we have now, but no one remembered to renamed the article. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Now it's all the same thing there's no need for the pedanticism --Joowwww (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Support no doubt everyone in the world still calls it Hotmail.--Pikablu0530 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
PAGE MOVED per discussion; cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
verifying spam addresses
The article contains the following line:
"With virtually no exceptions, these addresses are used for the express purpose of verifying the recipient's address, thus opening the door for more spam."
This is what is generally assumed, but I have yet to see anyone substantiating that claim.
I even recall an article from years ago, where there was an experiment with fresh email addresses where the surprising outcome was that replying to opt-out links had no negative effect on the amount of spam received. Though considering that the benefits of having a few email addresses verified probably does not outweigh the work involved in setting up a system for that purpose, perhaps this shouldn't really come as such a surprise.
I don't recall the scale of that experiment, and whether things have changed since then, but I think the claim made in the article does warrant some reference to some external source. One which isn't just repeating "common knowledge".
— SvdB (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
missed DNS renewals
I cleaned up the section on missed renewals and combined the two paragraphs for brevity. The hotmail.co.uk section had the wrong year anyway (it happened in 2003 according to the reference), and it was passport.com that wasn't renewed in 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belwig (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Quoting
How on earth do you quote part of all of an e-mail when responding to it? I tried it on a Mac and also on a PC, and it doesn't seem to let me do it. What an incredible pain! If someone knows how to do it, (a) please tell me; and (b) let's definitely incorporate the answer in this article. Thanks, EverybodyLovesSomebody (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
nnections" so it must be a problem down your end mate. Swanny92 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
POP3 Access
The acticle says that "POP3 access, although not directly available through Hotmail, can be accessed via Windows Live Mail, and Microsoft Outlook with Outlook Connector.[4]"
Firstly, WLM and Outlook do not give you POP3 access, they are simply desktop applications that access Hotmail via proprietary means.
Secondly "Hotmail Plus" subscribers do get real POP3 (and SMTP) access, see [[6]].
-- Mallardtheduck (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. That was a major mistake. Users often confuse POP3 and WebDAV, so whoever added it probably meant WebDAV. -- xpclienttalk 16:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirect
When a site redirects to somewhere else do not restore the redirect. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem with putting the full URl there is its extremely fragile. If hotmail decide to make even the slightest change to their URL format it will become a deadlink, whereas hotmail.com is always going to work. The reason they put a redirect there is so they can change the internal formatting of their URLs without breaking inbound links. Linking to hotmail.com makes more sense. Gwernol 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the link as they are clearly not going top restore it. Using a redirect makes us look sloppy and unprofessional, as if we had not noticed, it also gives the reader the wrong idea that hotmail.com still exists as a webpage. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The Hotmail.com is used for a reason. A) It's considered the one of the "official" links to Hotmail (like mail.live.com was and now hotmail.live.com, which all also redirect) and B) like Gwernol said, putting the full URI there is fragile as they could change it any minute and it would most likely become a dead link. I don't know anybody who would sit at their computer typing in "login.live.com/... whatever" just to avoid using a redirect and saving yourself about 2 seconds of loading. If this was another webpage we were talking about then yes in that case we would use the full link rather than a redirect though "www.hotmail.com" is used for a reason. Swanny92 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion of Competetors
Regarding this section in the development description of hotmail:
"After a period of technological stagnation, the webmail industry received a significant boost in 2004 when the Google search engine announced its own mail service, Gmail. Featuring increased storage space, speed and interface flexibility, this new competitor spurred a wave of innovation in webmail. The main industry heavyweights – Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail – introduced upgraded versions of their e-mail services with greater speed, security and advanced features."
Is it necessary, in an accurate description of hotmails growth, to describe Gmail's virtues and mention Yahoo alongside hotmail? How does this keep the article focused on the topic and retain neutrality? Elaborate and discuss.Coroloro (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Inaccurate Information
The Registration section says that users are offered a choice of hotmail.com hotmail.co.uk etc. This is not true. If, for example, you are in the uk, you are *only* offered a choice of uk addresses, i.e. hotmail.co.uk or live.co.uk.
So-called criticisms section
I noticed that just about everything in the "Criticisms" section has nothing to do with criticism. I'm going to split that content into other sections, and it seems like it would be easy to integrate the information on actual criticism into other sections as well, as suggested by Wikipedia:Criticism. Anyone disagree? - Josh (talk | contribs) 05:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the lightest criticism I've ever seen of any of the numerous insecure M$ products. How easy is it to hack into a known person's account or even hack right past all of M$ security since they just refuse to fix known issues in their server/firewall that manages hotmail.com/live.com like this "critical vulnerability in SQL Server" that has known "for more than eight months"
There isn't even a listing of the type of servers they use. (don't know, but my money is on SQL Server) Do you guys all work for M$ or do they send you gold once a month? ;)
The Unknown Soldier(talk | contribs) 12:40, 2 Jan 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.15.197 (talk)
Link to hotmail or windows live mail?
Hi all,
Many wikipedias have articles about both Windows Live Mail and Hotmail. My bot tried to get things straight today, but got reverted. What would be the best to link to from here with interwiki links? Any bright ideas? Thijs! (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hotmail should only link to pages that are named "Hotmail" or "Windows Live Hotmail" (the two official names).
Windows Live Mail (a separate software program) should be linked only to "Windows Live Mail".
Of course, there are names for the respective titles above in different languages, such as Arabic, and these should also be retained.
I believe that in most wikipedias, the articles are named either "Hotmail" or "Windows Live Hotmail" in English already as this is the brand name. And I'd say most of the ones that are not in English titles (such as the Arabic page identified above) are already properly interwiki linked. So I don't think your bot needs to do anything for the moment Thijs!. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Browser compatibility
It says that since Nov 4 2008 Google Chrome works with Hotmail - but I use Chrome and only get a read only mode when I log in - it won't let me write. Microsoft is obviously doing this intentionally and it has not been corrected. Is this happening to others? Because if it is then the statement should be removed. Malick78 (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion for splitting into MSN Hotmail and Windows Live Hotmail
Oppose To whoever suggested the split, please note that it was after a really long debate to come to the consensus and settle with the decision to merge Windows Live Hotmail and MSN Hotmail articles together, and renaming the article to Hotmail as it is today. The person who placed the split template did not provide any reason for doing so. If the reasoning behind the split was based on article size, this article's length is not long enough to justify a split. Therefore I strongly oppose to splitting the article. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Postpone It is unknown at this stage whether Windows Live Web Messenger will have its own independent service as well as integrating into the new version Hotmail. I'd suggest postponing the merge at least until it is officially integrated into Hotmail. Please take note that currently, the Windows Live Web Messenger article contains information (particularly historical information) about both MSN Web Messenger and the once independent service Windows Live Web Messenger that was released to beta testers only. These are particularly important information that should be preserved even when merged. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Postpone Still unknown...even though it has already been redirected...The supposed reference at liveside.net only states that the Web Messenger has gone into preliminary dogfood testing withing Microsoft only, and has not been released either in full or to the general public.WasAPasserBy (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Phone number
One issue is P.O.C.
I have recently encountered a situation in which I needed to contact customer service for hotmail, and was wondering if it might be a good thing to include a P.O.C. section in the article.John5Russell3Finley (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Oldest hotmail account
Just wondering if it's been figured out who has had the oldest hotmail account, still in operation, as I've never seen any mention of this anywhere.
Wikipedia doesn't publish trivia like that, as it's generally not considered notable.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Rubbish - we want that info. and it's typical info. on Wikipedia. Stop speaking for Wikipedia and misrepresenting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.102.108 (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
No a polite way of putting it...
But the core disagreement is right: If it can be verified by fact, it can be put into the article. Generally speaking, what Wikipedia does not want is a "trivia" section which includes incoherent facts (lists of indiscriminate items), but that can always be avoided. In addition, notability is a mean of weighing the merit of an article and does not apply to a single fact. Fleet Command (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been discussed here before, but I have heard that some Swedes derive amusement from the name, because the word hot (pronounced like the word hoot in Scots) means "threat" in Swedish, so some Swedes tend to think of "Hotmail" as "threat letters". JIP | Talk 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hotmail for Mac
It seem appropriate to mention [mBox Mail for Mac] as a solution for Mac users to get IMAP support for Windows Live Hotmail. Formerly the solution was HTTP Mail via WebDav. Now WebDav is discontinued by MS. As far as I know this is the only solution for Mac users to get their Hotmail with folders without using the Web pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.194.4 (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Patent puffery
The article claims that Hotmail uses patented security, but the citation just mentions patent pending technology. Hardly the same thing. Most pending patent applications are never granted. Editing accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.113.11 (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
F7r@hotmail.at —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.68.41 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hotmail initially ran under FreeBSD-Apache and was only converted to Microsoft products in 2000???
Regarding this line: "Hotmail initially ran under FreeBSD-Apache and was only converted to Microsoft products in 2000."
I think it definitely needs a citation. I worked for UUNet when MS acquired Hotmail (the MicroSoft Network was in reality more UUNet than implied by it's name, (with UUNet) providing much of their connectivity services, and the backbone their stuff ran on). As far as I can remember, having had to deal with the transition, Hotmail was running on SunOS and Solaris. The switchover started a lot earlier than 2000 AFAICR. Shortly after they acquired it (1998ish). I believe the transition may have "completed" in or around 2000. Regardless, that sentence definitely needs a citation, as it's far from my memory of the circumstances and/or makes specific unfounded claims. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
"The software giant has attempted to exchange the Sun/Solaris infrastructure of Hotmail with NT since buying it in December 1997. However, the demands of supporting 10 million users reportedly proved too great for NT, and Solaris was reinstated."
That was from a pretty big pub of the time. There should be a bunch more to support it. It's what we used (UUNet), and it's what we used to handle mail for our clients, and what Hotmail was running off our services. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm changing it. Here's[8] the one of the original MICROSOFT job posting from when they were on attempt #2 (or was it #3 or #4?) to migrate off Solaris. I am also removing the year 2000, as the actual successful migration didn't happen for YEARS from that date (or the original attempt in 1998). Note the migration was still not done successfully by 2002. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
For those who don't like clicking links to verify, here's a snippet from the job posting (emphasis mine)... "The Hotmail development team needs a Software Design Engineer to work on the design and development of the next generation of backend servers. The new backend servers are WIN32 replacements for the current Solaris implementation." For the rest of you, click the links above. Guess I am not going as senile as I thought. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The confusion may come from the fact that SunOS and Solaris were BSD implementations at that time. Note... BSD, not FreeBSD implementations though. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, just in case anyone is interested, I've read through everything I could find (the two links above and a number of others). Hotmail's mail services were run on Solaris/SunOS. The web interface was run on Apache (v1.21?) and FreeBSD. The statement has been adjusted to match. No one seems to have a clear cut idea of when the final migration to Windows was completed. By 2002, they (MS) were still looking to hire people to try the migration yet again. I suspect a completed migration date (especially not 2000) should be left out unless some reliable third party has posted a date. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This article from 2011 states, that in 2004 Microsoft started to rewrite the backend system to move it to a system that uses Windows Server and Windows SQL Server... But till today no single press-release claimed the transition from Unix to Windows got accomplished.--Sajoch (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Criticism section: RIP
I always wonder about these "sanitized" company pages, 9 times out of 10 a criticism section has been deleted/and or later merged then slowly removed, as is the case here, in March 2009.[9] Original: [10]
Good riddance. It look like everything but a criticism section. Though I think some verifiable items can still be salvaged and re-written in a neutral manner (as opposed to polish-an-apple-for-Microsoft or bash-the-hell-outta-Microsoft styles). Fleet Command (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't take me wrong: I don't think that Criticism is unnecessary. But I think instead of a writing an article in an all-praise manner with only one Criticism section into which all shortcomings are crammed, the entire article must be written from a neutral point of view; critical points must placed on the spot where appropriate. A dedicated criticism section belongs to articles about movies. Fleet Command (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Accounts exposed in 1999
It looks like there was a big security issue in august 1999 too [11] maybe the information should be added into the article. — Ark25 (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I think so. /me wonders if these problems were related to their switch from FreeBSD. Scientus (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Name change?
According to the main Hotmail site, the name seems to have changed to Microsoft Hotmail, although it still says Windows Live when logged in. Is this part of a forthcoming rebrand? Cloudbound (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
AJAX
Is putting Ajax in the first paragraph really appropriate? Most non technical users aren't going to have a clue what that is, nor does it really show up as a main feature. Lukes123 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
'Security Issues' section text
I removed this text from the end of the above mentioned section:
"The space increased to 50MB and then 250MB in 2004.In July 2012 a hacker has been hacking 40000 Yahoo!,Gmail and Hotmail accounts. Over from 4000 people are hacking still some people can't sign in with these 3 accounts, But other people's accounts still maybe okay."
It's unsourced, poorly written, and the space bit is irrelevant to the section. Thoughts? OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the bit was added by an IP address user with warnings for other non-constructive edits. So probably not too controversial removing it then. OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.google.co.uk/options/icons/gmail.gif){kind=link}
